A few question for Omnivores . . .

Of course I read the quotes, you-… ahem… First off, yes, I asked for info. And you did not deliver the info I asked for. I asked for a cite that one Big Mac equals one square acre of rainforest, which you not only admitted to being wrong, but have not offered ANY information yet to support it as even “merely” an exageration.

As for the quotes you did give, I don’t see what relavance they have, seeing as I don’t argue with them. There are a couple that need more clarification (Pointing out that a certain number of species are endangered is worthless without also showing how that relates to the discussion at hand), some need more cites (That Al Gore one in particular, where I’d like to see a figure in comparison of the numbers of species instead of just a statement), and one that is misleading (The one I addressed). And as for the rest, I pointed out that “rainforest beef” is not “all beef”. I also pointed out that I don’t like having the rainforest cleared out. And I ALSO pointed out that the vast majority of my meat most certainly IS NOT “rainforest beef”, so using that as an argument why I should avoid ALL meat is entirely pointless!

I thought I made that clear enough in my previous post, but I guess you didn’t get it. I didn’t address them all individually, but I did address them all as a whole.

Speaking of hipocracy, you shouldn’t be accusing people of ignoring half of your post when you ignore all but two or three lines of theirs. Are you going to address any of my points, or are you going to just avoid them?

Then read my previous post and address my points there, so I don’t have to copy and paste it all again for you. Don’t just ignore them.

It’s somewhere on the Food and Agriculture Organization website (www.fao.org), though I can’t find it now. You might also want to note that they are discussing a plan underway that should greatly reduce hunger world-wide, without the elimination of eating meat.

Now then, I’m still waiting for anything about the points I brought up. Especially:

Why is a human evil for eating meat while a bear is not, seeing as both are omnivores and both can eat vegitable matter instead of meat? Or if “evil” is too strong for you, how about “not good.”

Second, are you going to show how much of the US’s meat consumption if “rainforest beef”? Or even if Big Macs are “rainforest beef” or not?

And I’d really like to hear you address the corrections to your statements about veggie burgers.

Feel free to address any of the other points I mentioned too, if the mood strikes you :rolleyes:

If your biggest argument against me eating meat is that some meat results in the destruction of rainforests (Most specifically, the meat I am the least likely to eat already), then you need to do a lot more, especially since eating meat is something I consider an intrinsic part of my being (Something I believe I mentioned in my very first post on this subject).

A list of figures culled from three different sources with no links to the studies that provided those figures…to quote Mark Twain, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” As Darwin’s Finch put it so well, these are meaningless without context. Why do you ask me to address your points when you dismiss mine?

No, I don’t. Land for agriculture must be cleared, harrowed, plowed; weeds and pests must be eradicated; when grains and most vegetables are harvested, the non-edible portions of the plants must be discarded. When you’re talking millions of acres, you’re talking about a lot of waste, pollutants, harm to animals, and destruction.

I can’t say exactly what I think because so far, this thread isn’t in the Pit. Your ‘data’ and ‘evidence’ are not convincing to me; I believe agriculture is equally destructive, if not more so.

You want to do as little damage as possible? I told you exactly how to do that before. The fact that people eat meat does not excuse the fact that you own a computer, live in a house, heat and/or cool that house, etc. Stop being such a hypocrite!

Nope. Plants exhaust their soil, which must be either let to lie fallow for at least three years, or chemicals must be added to the soil to keep it producing. Entire rivers have been damned, destroying riparian habitats, in the name of agriculture.

Vitamin supplements derived from animals, and which the cat would not like to live on–something you’d find out when the cat started munching on mice, birds and other prey. Cats are not omnivores, they are carnivores, and your willingness to torture one in the name of your ideology makes me sick.

Frankly, I’d rather criticize those parents who condemn their children to mental and physical retardation by raising them on vegan diets. (For that matter, I’d rather condemn the Japanese for being the biggest exporter of child pornography in the world, but that’s another topic.)

Cows, sheep, goats, pigs, and chickens. Probably ducks and domesticated geese, too, now that I think about it.

How and when?

I grew up on a family farm, 160 acres, half of which was wooded. I could go into great detail about what I observed in nature, but I haven’t been paid to write an essay for you.

In order: no, yes, yes, yes, yes, no, yes, yes.

Correction: you are the one concerned with making a minimal impact on the world. The best way to do this is to be as much a part of nature as possible. I, on the other hand, delight in the modern world and agree with James Agee: “Nature…is what we are put into this world to rise above.”

Others have already asked you why a human is evil, but a bear is not, so I’ll leave this one.

Why?

I know that you live in a town of 15,000 (quite a large town, IMO)in Japan, a heavily industrialized nation; that you own a computer, a television and a video game console, and a bicycle. I think I can safely assume that the home you live in uses water and creates sewage, that it’s electrified, that you utilize some form of heating and/or cooling. So, other than eating meat, you use up just as many resources as I do–actually, more, as I don’t even own a bicycle, I walk.

Oh my gosh, I just realized something! The only way Dal could be right is if she/he/it was actually a DIVINE entity, think about it, in the face of evidence she/he/it presses on. This can only mean one of two things; she/he is lieing and using every dirty trick in the book, OR, and this is my theory; she/he/it is privy to knowledge we do not know or understand. Maybe Dal is a conduit to God, perhaps a profit. The reason she/he doesn’t make good points is because of a translation error and the difficulties of the human mind to comprehend. It’s like that old adage about the bible-inspired by God, written by man.
That must be it…

I’m about to come to the conclusion, based on Dal’s reasoning, that mankind shouldn’t eat anything. Using the logic Dal has presented I feel it is irresponsible of man to seek sustinance from external sources.
It is only when we humans seek to feed ourselves do we endanger the fluffy, the bunny, or sam the ant. Human beings are evil creatures and do not deserve the same shake as do other animals, therefore we should all starve to death.
It seems to me Dal that you think because humans are capable of thought that they are different biologically than animals. IMO Humans aren’t even better than animals, we ARE animals.

Nah, it’d take too long, we’re killing bacteria and the like the whole time by our very existance. We’d better all kill ourselves before we kill too many more… What do you think, Dalmuti? :slight_smile:

My thoughts exactly.

Finch, economic laws are hyperbole? If you say so. I’ll try to say it even simpler: You create a demand for a product, that product needs to be supplied. Many of the companies choose to supply that product by paying other companies to burn down rainforest. What’s not to understand? You’re so special that your money isn’t a symbolic gesture of support, like the rest of us? So, it’s not a negative thing for me to buy crack, it wouldn’t have any greater effects, because Finch dismissed economics off as hyperbole.

No, I never claimed a vegan lifestyle could fix anything. Look at my language, it’s not definite or concrete at all. I’ve bolded it so you can see what I’m talking about.

“How many things in the world (other than starving yourself and/or dying) can you do to all of the following: 1) reduce the possibility of your being overweight, developing heart disease, and cancer; 2) Not take active part in the destruction of forests and rainforests all over the world; 3) Minimalize the amount of needless death and suffering in the world; 4) Work towards reducing world hunger; 5) Give the least amount of money possible to industries that produces unreal amounts of water, air, and soil pollution; and 6) Show your support of working towards a sustainable planet?”

None of those statements make any allusion to a definitive answer. Never once do I say “stop” or “eliminate” or “prevent.” Wouldn’t you agree?

You said “Unless, of course, you can provide evidence that the meat industry is the cause of (and not just a contributor to) these problems.”

So, things aren’t worth the effort if there’s no clear cut answer in sight? Did I ever claim that the meat industry was ever more then “one of the major problems” contributing to the increasing environmental threat? I don’t think I did.

Have you taken the time to attempt to disprove any of the claims I’ve made? It’s your damn food. Show me a cite that tells us where your cows come from. What do they eat? How are they treated? You haven’t showed me the least bit of citation, for all of the refuting and rejecting you’ve done. You merely keep repeating “I know that already,” and “We need to make changes, but not me personally.”
Dragon, you said “There currently is enough food in the world to feed everyone (Even with meat production), it’s a matter of distribution.”

I’m still waitiing for a cite. Let me know when you can find it.

You said “Why is a human evil for eating meat while a bear is not, seeing as both are omnivores and both can eat vegitable matter instead of meat? Or if “evil” is too strong for you, how about “not good.””

I’ve already adressed this. Humans have a choice. Bears can’t plant vegetables. Humans can. Humans have the means, but not the will, to adopt a plant-based diet. Bears do not hae the means. This is the difference. Also, do bears, on a one-for one basis, produce as much waste, garbage, and pollution as humans? Nope. Not by a long shot. Knowingly choosing to do somthing, when there is a much better option available, definitely qualifies as “not good.”

You said “Second, are you going to show how much of the US’s meat consumption if “rainforest beef”? Or even if Big Macs are “rainforest beef” or not?”

Most rainforest beef goes towards fast food hamburgers. The best cite I can give is that it states it over and over again in the book Fast Food Nation, and all of the author’s sources are very, very well documented. I know of a good quote, but I can’t find it right now. A fellow meat eater, zen101 attested to the depth and accuracy of this book.

You said “And I’d really like to hear you address the corrections to your statements about veggie burgers.”

Well, I personally don’t eat veggie burgers, as they’re not available here. I buy most of my vegetables and legumes from local organic farmers, who use “natural” pesticides. Don’t know much about natural pesticides, sorry. But, there are regulations and protocol and certification requirements that farms have to meet to be labeled “organic.” Let’s see, I’m looking around my kitchen. Literally, everything is organic. Olive oil, soy sauce, sesame oil, garlic powder, ginger, brown rice crackers, peanut butter, tahini, tofu, pressed seaweed, maple syrup, soup stock, energy bars, pasta sauce, jellies, corn chips, Gorilla Munch cereal, muselix, all of my grains, all of my noodles, and all of my juices and soy milk. My bottle of tabasco sauce isn’t organic. Neither is my bottle or coriander. Neither are my B-12 supplements. I guess the water out of my faucent isn’t, either. Sorry. I guess I should give up, since 100% is the only right, strong, American GI Joe way to do things! It’s all or nothing. No other choices are acceptable.

You do realize, of course, that the cows you eat store all of the pesticides they ingest (from their food) in their fat cells, which you then eat, and store in your fat cells, right? You probably already know that, but I just want to make sure.

One last point, from a post or two ago. You said “And since you’re going on and on about it, explain how eating meat (Not “rainforest beef,” but ANY meat) means someone likes that the rainforest is being eroded away.”

I never said that this means someone “likes” the fact that the rainforest is being burnt down. (By the by, does that mean you admit that the rainforest it being cleared away? You acknowledge this fact?) But, if someone still chooses to support an industry that practices these things, that person is not showing their dissaproval. Not showing their dissapproval essentially equates to either not caring one way or another, or actually approving the practice. So, if I donated my money to terrorist organizations, would you believe me if I claimed to not like what they were doing? No, you most certainly wouldn’t.
Squish, so you’re claiming that farming plants causes more waste than raising animals? Give me a cite please. I’ll repeat myself: plants don’t poop. Not in the same way, at least. Do you want to take a guess as how much fecal waste all of the animals in the US produce every day? I’ve read the number, in Fast Food Nation, but I’m not going to go digging around the book when you can just read it for yourself.

As per your comment, the fact that I own a computer and a bicycle, likewise, do not excuse the fact that you eat dead animals. Tag. Now you’re it.

You said “Nope. Plants exhaust their soil, which must be either let to lie fallow for at least three years, or chemicals must be added to the soil to keep it producing. Entire rivers have been damned, destroying riparian habitats, in the name of agriculture”

Cite? Also, you’ve probably heard of crop rotation. That works too, you know, much better than applying chemicals. Soil is often rendered useless by grazing cows, who trample the earth, and conpact the topsoil to the point where it’s so solid, insects cannot turn it. What happens then? We lose the topsoil. Do you not agree that grazing has a very negative impact on soil and soil quality?

Also, I’ll repeat myself, slowly. Do. You. Not. Realize. That. Most. Agricultural. Output. Is. Fed. To. Livestock. ?.
You said “Frankly, I’d rather criticize those parents who condemn their children to mental and physical retardation by raising them on vegan diets.”

Let’s think about two things: frequency and practicality. How many vegans do you know? Very, very few. How many of them have children? Even fewer. How many happy meals have been sold? Says right on the sign: “Billions and billions.”

Sure, I think that these dimwitted parents who don’t know the first thing about nutrition and feed their babies some insane variation of a vegan diet are horrible. Two things to note: This is not always the case, and, there is a “proper” way to raise a baby vegan. It takes a lot of work, a lot of research, but it can be done well. Just as well as a non-vegan diet, in fact.

But, the fact is, there are exponantially more dimwitted parents out there who feed their children the nasty crap these fast food restaurants pass off as food. Do you not agree with that? Bigger number of these dimwits, so this would qualify as a bigger problem, no?

You talked about my approval of “Cows, sheep, goats, pigs, and chickens. Probably ducks and domesticated geese, too” going extinct. Cows would be fine and well in India and Nepal. Not going extinct any time soon. Sheep? People keep sheep for pets. Dogs haven’t gone extinct, have they? Same with goats. And there are wild mountain goats. Pigs are also kept as pets, and there are wild pigs. Geese? Geese will be fine. There’s a lake nearby that fills up with wild Russian geese every autumn. Ducks? There’s more than enough wild ducks out there. Maybe they’d disappear fron China, but not the wole world.

It strikes me as funny that you’re so concerned with these animals, yet have yet to comment on the mass extinctions that take place as a direct result of burning down rainforests. Are you not concerned about all of the animals in these ancient forests, as well?

“I grew up on a family farm.” Well, YOU WIN A PRIZE!

“Nature…is what we are put into this world to rise above.”
So, then, by this definition, nuclear energy is natural, domestic violence is natural, porn is natural, toxic sludge is natural, biological terrorism is natural, hate is natural, and everything else.

Also, using that definition, eating meat is unnatural. If it was natural, then we were put here to rise above the practice. But, since you can’t move beyond (rise above) eating meat, it must be unnatural. Whatever. I’ll pull a Finch and play my hyperbole card.

To close, you said “I know that you live in a town of 15,000 (quite a large town, IMO)in Japan, a heavily industrialized nation; that you own a computer, a television and a video game console, and a bicycle. I think I can safely assume that the home you live in uses water and creates sewage, that it’s electrified, that you utilize some form of heating and/or cooling. So, other than eating meat, you use up just as many resources as I do–actually, more, as I don’t even own a bicycle, I walk.”

Yes, I am responsible for the size of the town in which I live. Yes, I am completely responsible for the American restructuring of Japanese society into a highly industrialized workhorse. And yes, I’ll also admit to the fact that you wanted to point out, but didn’t, that it’s my fault that the western coast of Japan has a lot of radioactive material in the soil as I just happend to be one who provoked the US to drop atomic bombs there. Ya got me, there.

Water? Check. Sewers? Check. Heating and cooling? Only an electric blanket and a fan, my friend. They don’t have central heating here. (Earthquakes and gas lines don’t mix well.) Not that this is relevant at all. Just thought you’d find it interesting.

Regardless of whether or not I have a flushing toilet, you still continue to gravely underestimate the waste produced and resources consumed by eating meat.

You walk to work? Yes, that’s vastly more “natural” than riding my beastly bicycle. Even if I drove a car to work, every day to and from work, which I don’t, it wouldn’t begin to have a fraction of the negative environmental impact on the planet that producing a week’s worth of meat for a “normal” family does.

You want a cite? Go read some books.

Can you point me to a good book that says “Oh, nothing’s wrong. Meat is good! It doesn’t cause cancer! It doesn’t damage the environment! It isn’t a waste of resources? It’s a perfectly healthy, sustainavble practice thats good for everyone!” I’d be interested to read it.
Meatros, keep being funny, friend. Surely you must have some sort of genetic disposition towards humor. I hope that it gets you far, in life.

You said “It seems to me Dal that you think because humans are capable of thought that they are different biologically than animals. IMO Humans aren’t even better than animals, we ARE animals.”

What you just said justifies every atrocity, every crime, and every sick and twisted thing a human being has done to another human being. If we cannot be responsible for our own actions, what can we be held responsible for? Man, I sincerely hope you never have children.

It’s so simple. It was even in the recent Spider-man movie. “With great power comes responsibilty.”

Just because we are animals doesn’t remove us from being responsible for what we choose to do and not do. Sure, not better than animals, not worse than animals, but undoubtedly different from animals.

Grow up a little, and you’ll figure that out.

-TGD

TGD,

I do think you are to be applauded for following your conscience in making decisions on what you eat and how you live.

There are several things I agree with you on…however, I think most of these issues could be solved, or at least diminished by eating meat responsibly . Which most Americans don’t do. We could eat less meat, we could change the ways we raise our cattle, etc. I’m all for doing stuff like that.

BTW, someone sent me a NY Times article called “Power Steer”. Unfortunately I can’t link to it, but it was published on March 31, 2002 and written by Michael Pollan. It was a look into the life cycle of your basic head of cattle.

This part in particular blew my mind. Most cattle are corn-fed. It fattens them up quickly…

"For if you follow the corn from this bunk back to the fields where it grows, you will find an 80-million-acre monoculture that consumes more chemical herbicide and fertilizer than any other crop. Keep going and you can trace the nitrogen runoff from that crop all the way down the Mississippi into the Gulf of Mexico, where it has created (if that is the right word) a 12,000-square-mile ‘‘dead zone.’’

But you can go farther still, and follow the fertilizer needed to grow that corn all the way to the oil fields of the Persian Gulf. No. 534 started life as part of a food chain that derived all its energy from the sun; now that corn constitutes such an important link in his food chain, he is the product of an industrial system powered by fossil fuel. (And in turn, defended by the military – another uncounted cost of ‘‘cheap’’ food.) I asked David Pimentel, a Cornell ecologist who specializes in agriculture and energy, if it might be possible to calculate precisely how much oil it will take to grow my steer to slaughter weight. Assuming No. 534 continues to eat 25 pounds of corn a day and reaches a weight of 1,250 pounds, he will have consumed in his lifetime roughly 284 gallons of oil. We have succeeded in industrializing the beef calf, transforming what was once a solar-powered ruminant into the very last thing we need: another fossil-fuel machine."

Apparently, a few people do raise grass-fed cattle. But its more expensive, because it takes longer to get grass-fed cattle to market. Also, the taste of the beef differs from cow to cow…because the grass differs from place to place.

Myself, I’d rather push for more pasture land being given over to raise beef, and have more expensive meat than to just give it up all together.

Besides, could you imagine the secret fetishes that would evolve around eating meat if the vegans had their way with us? I’m afraid I would be one of those people who duck into a back alley and spend a couple of grand for an illegal steak:)

dalmuti, answer the question put to you; do not create strawmen. You said that I directly cause the extinction of “hundreds of species of birds” by buying a hamburger. Extinction does not mean “killing some animals”. It means eradicating each and every individual belonging to that species. Either show me evidence that this monetary transaction specifically causes said extinctions (please include which species went extinct as a result, as well), or retract the statement. It’s as simple as that. Your economic arguments are indirect, at best. Please look up the difference between “direct” and “indirect”.

**

Which means its my damn decision as to whether or not I wish to eat it, regardless what you think.

**

Because I’m not the one trying to defend a lost cause (meaning, specifically, your arguments, not the issue). I need only point out how your statements are incorrect. One doesn’t need a cite to show how your logic is flawed, regardless of the statistics you bring up.

Thanks for the post, ouisey. I can’t agree more that as a culture, we need to be much more responsible with the food we choose to eat, and the companies we choose to support with our money.

Thanks for suggesting the great article. Here’s a link to the article, which was originally published in the NY Times.

I suggest that all of my friends and foes out there please read this enlightening article, written by a meat eater, who wanted to “to take more responsibility for the invisible but crucial transaction between ourselves and the animals we eat”

The part about the “dead zones” is so terribly depressing. There are many other instances of “dead zones” being formed, when the facilities designed to store livestock waste develops a leak, or other structrual damage. A large amount of animal waste introduced into a river or stream instantly kills thousands and thousands of fish.

The statistic about the “284 gallons of oil” is shocking. I never would have imagined that much feul is put into raising a single cow. But, it makes sense. (The conclusion, not the practice.)

Yes, I wouldn’t even be here discussing this subject if all cows were free range, and grass fed. I would still personally choose not to eat cows, but I would be a much happier camper.

Here’s a quote from the article *"For cows, sheep and other grazers have the unique ability to convert grass – which single-stomached creatures like us can’t digest – into high-quality protein. They can do this because they possess a rumen, a 45-gallon fermentation tank in which a resident population of bacteria turns grass into metabolically useful organic acids and protein.

This is an excellent system for all concerned: for the grasses, for the animals and for us. What’s more, growing meat on grass can make superb ecological sense: so long as the rancher practices rotational grazing, it is a sustainable, solar-powered system for producing food on land too arid or hilly to grow anything else."*

But, like the article says, cows don’t eat grass anymore. They eat corn, soy, pig feces, chicken feces, and other rendered stuff. This is wasting the one potentially (in my opinon) positive aspect of eating meat: their ability to turn food inedible to humans into accessible food.

But the truth is, there’s just not enough pasture, not for the amount of beef America consumes. And it’s just getting worse.

Again, I completely agree that a viable alternative would be to raise the price of meat. If this happened, meat comsumption would naturally decrease, and there would be less of a need for growth hormones, anitibiotics, and other aspects of today’s factory farms.

It’s amazing how much money the government subcidizes to meat ranchers. I don’t have an exact amount, unfortunately. But the “true” price of beef, without the subcidies, would drive even the most dedicated steak eaters away. But, a lot of this comes down to politics. The meat and dairy industries are powerful, and can buy all of the political power they want, or need.

Responsibility is a big problem, especially when someone tells someone else they need to have more. It is necessarily a personal attack, which provokes denial, anger, and defensiveness. It doesn’t help to have children contantly subjected to McDonalds and Burger King commercials, 24/7, either.

As for your “illegal steaks,” that’s a frightening image, though I wouldn’t alltogether pass it off as fiction. If it came down to it, it seems like many of the people on this board would have no second thoughts about eating other humans, if they had the chance.

Again, thanks for the great article, ouisey.

-TGD

Just to throw a nice little wrench in here: assume, for a moment, that all of the corn produced on that 80-million-acre field went to humans instead of cattle. How does this make everything listed above, with respect to the care and treatment of that cornfield only, less wasteful? If you substitute “humans” for “cattle” in ouisey’s quote, you still have the same problems.

Why are you so fascinated with SHIT?!

That’s so juvenile. :rolls eyes: Why isn’t this thread in the Pit yet?

You asked for a cite? Regarding damned rivers, or what? The river I had immediately in mind is the Rio Salado/Salt River here in Arizona. Once a vibrant, living river that ran through Phoenix, so many dams were built on it to provide water for agriculture that its bed, downstream from the dams, is dry and used for gravel mining.

That was a direct answer to a question you posed. If you don’t like the answer, too bad.

That isn’t a definition and your extensions from that quote are illogical. Dal, you’re making quite a case that vegans are illogical and rabid.

Again, I was directly answering your assertion that I knew nothing about you except that you were vegan. On the contrary, you’ve told us a lot about yourself. So, just out of curiosity, why an electricblanket? As for the bicycle–factories had to manufacture the materials, the parts, and the end product.

You’rethe one concerned with making a minimal impact on the earth, not I. So the onus of defending lifestyles is upon you.

You know, I would assume that if people ate less meat, they would eat more plant matter, so you do have a point there. OTOH, I highly doubt that everyone would eat the amount of corn that a 1,250 pound cow does. I would be interested in seeing how many people on average, it takes to eat one 1,250 pound cow, and dividing that into an amount of corn per person…maybe they’d match up.

TGD, I think its going a little overboard to claim that some of the dopers would eat each other. I think its safe to say that most of us believe that killing other people is wrong. Myself, I wouldn’t have a problem eating a dead person, if I needed to.

Sue

Dalmuti:

It seems that almost all of your arguments are about the rainforests. Do you actually believe that all animals are raised there? All the chickens are chomping down on rainforest plants? All the fish are flopping around on the rainforest floor? I think a lot of us agree that the rainforests should not be cleared. But there are, surprisingly, other places to raise animals. You didn’t respond to any of my points. Also, surprising. :rolleyes:

Are you aware that Gandhi drank milk? What exactly are your reasons for believing that drinking milk is wrong?

Are you aware that fish are very good for you, containing much needed protein, and do not live in the rainforest? What exactly are your reasons for believing that eating fish is wrong?

Are you aware that there are farmers paid to NOT grow anything, that their lobbies are powerful just as the meat industry lobbies, that there is land that is NOT being used because they want to keep vegetable and grain prices high, and that this, more than meat consumption, is why people are starving? What exactly are your reasons for believing that eating vegetables is not wrong?

Also, I’ll repeat myself, slowly. Do. You. Not. Realize. That. Agricultural. Land. Is. Not. Being. Used. ?.

Finch, the rainforest communities thank you for your indirect support of the razing of their home. Your trite, displacing, cop-out means a lot to them, and they understand that you don’t really want to make them go extinct, you just can’t help yourself from supplying money to companies who do directly make them go extinct. You’re the real victim, not the animals. They’re proud to die for you, because you know the difference between the words “direct” and “indirect”. You’re their hero!

You’re going to try and play innocent over my use of the words “direct” and “indirect?” It appears as if you are in some serious denial. It’s so sad you’re using something so transparent to shield yourself from the obvious consequences of your actions.

And you said my logic was flawed.

You would have no ethical qualms over hiring a hitman to harm another human? It’s the same exact thing. You’re paying the McMiddleman to do your dirty work for you, and you sit back and think you’re good to go; flaw free; nothing if not loving them animals!

There’s nothing wrong with buying crack, as long as you don’t make it yourself?

There’s nothing wrong with buying child pornography, as long as you didn’t film it yourself?

There’s nothing wrong with buying your child a gun, as long as you don’t use it yourself?

Wake up, my man, and accept that yes, you are a part of the problem.
Here’s a to a PBS factsheet. Is PBS good enough for you? Check it out. More indirect death you are absolutely absolved from.

**“The estimated rate of extinction of species of plants and animals in rainforest ecosystems resulting from human interference is 50,000 every year, an average of about 140/day.”

“Species of plants and animals are disappearing from the rainforests before they can be cataloged and studied.”

“About 2,000 trees per minute are cut down in the rainforests.”

"Almost 65% of Central America has been cleared to create pastureland for grazing cattle. "

“Rainforest land cleared for pasture or farming degrades quickly and must be abandoned.”

“Forest fragments, if isolated, degenerate by loss of animal pollinators, dispersers and predators. The species balance is upset. The ecosystem begins to collapse.”

“At least 42 million acres of tropical forest are lost each year, an area the size of Washington State. This equals about 100 acres/minute.”

"Costa Rica loses 2.5 tons of topsoil to erosion for every kilo of meat exported; a farmer can make 86 times as much money per acre with coffee and 284 times as much with bananas as with beef. "

“More than 50% of the world’s plant and animal species inhabit the 7% of the world that is covered in rainforest. Many of these species are located in small parts of the rainforest ecosystems and are found nowhere else on Earth.”**
But don’t worry. You have absolutely nothing to do with any of this. I absolve you. Absolved in the name of logic.
Here’s a nice quote from YesWorld:

**“When we eat rainforest beef, we don’t pay the whole price at the cash register. Every four ounces (an average hamburger) is responsible for the destruction of 55 square feet of tropical rainforest, the loss of 1,000 pounds of vegetation, and the death of between twenty and thirty forms of life.”

“A recent study by the World Wildlife Fund showed that Brazilians could make between three and 100 times more money from a properly managed rainforest than by current methods which destroy the forests. A well-managed forest will provide valuable goods and money on-goingly, whereas cattle, mining, dams, and timber make the land only valuable for a brief time, after which it becomes worthless. Properly managing a forest includes the sustainable harvesting of things like Brazil nuts, cashews, rubber, resins, and wild tropical fruits, ecological tourism, and more.”**
Here are some facts taken from a report atforests.org:
"Conservationists estimate that the current extinction rate is 1,000 to 10,000 times higher than it should be under natural conditions. That means that in the first decades of the 21st
century, many creatures - from a majestic Albatross to Asian freshwater turtles - may join the ranks of the flightless Dodo bird. The primary reason: humans. Everything from expanding cities to
deforestation, agriculture and fishing pose a significant threat to the planet’s biodiversity . . .Of the 11,046 plants and animals at risk of extinction, 1,184 are in Central America and Mexico, where poverty and logging are teaming up to shrink habitats and decimate species, according to the study . . .Those listed as threatened to some degree number 11,046 plant and animal species, in almost all cases because of human activities. IUCN says this means that 24% of mammals and 12% of birds “face a high risk of extinction in the near future”. The list includes 18,276 species and subspecies. About 25% of reptiles, 20% of amphibians and 30% of fish so far assessed are listed as threatened . . .The total number of critically endangered mammal species is now 180, 11 more than in 1996, while bird species have risen from 168 to 182."

But, again, you’re absolved.
Another quote from this cite:
**One of the principle reasons for deforestation is to provide grazing ground for cattle. In terms of global warming, this means that enormous amounts of carbon dioxide are released into the atmosphere. The grazing of cows and other ruminant animals also causes the emission of two other major ozone destroying gases: nitrous oxide (in fertilizer) and over a hundred million tons of methane gas a year – which some scientists see as becoming the primary global warming gas in the next 50 years.

Americans eat more beef than any other country in the world, consuming 32% of the total production. Meat-eaters are not only destroying their own health by consuming these toxic products, they are contributing to numerous other problems such as world hunger (the land needed to feed cattle is 20 times the amount needed to feed people), the expropriation of people from their lands (used to graze cattle), the destruction of human and animal habitat, and the aggravation of global warming. Experts estimate that every person who switches to a pure vegetarian (vegan) diet saves an acre of trees every year.

Before biting into the next hamburger, one might consider the real cost – 55 square feet of rainforest, 12 pounds of grain, and 2500 gallons of water. I for one believe that the earth and its teeming life forms are worth much more than fast food chains and Big Macs. The best way to care for the environment is to become a vegetarian; to be consistent in one’s beliefs, an environmentalist must also be a vegetarian.**
Here’s another good quote from this cite:**One acre of land can produce 20,000 pounds of potatoes or just 165 pounds of beef. While people are starving worldwide, our livestock consumes 80 percent of the corn, 95 percent of the oats and almost all of the soybeans grown in the U.S. If these crops were fed directly to people, we would have enough food to feed five times the human population of our own country. Think of the impact that would have on world hunger. **
But you probably already knew that. And what a guy you are to choose to do nothing about it.

-TGD

Finch, you said “Just to throw a nice little wrench in here: assume, for a moment, that all of the corn produced on that 80-million-acre field went to humans instead of cattle. How does this make everything listed above, with respect to the care and treatment of that cornfield only, less wasteful? If you substitute “humans” for “cattle” in ouisey’s quote, you still have the same problems.”

You don’t have to burn down rainforests to let humans graze. Also, that’s 80,000,000 acres worth of corn that we can not start feeding, ideally, to the world’s 1.2 billion underfed humans.

Instead of funneling the grain through the cows, it could then go striaght to us. More corn = lower prices = more avilability = more people eating it.

Nighttime, no I wasn’t aware that some farmers were being paid to not plant crops. What are the implications of this? Do you consider this a problem? What can one do to voice their disapproval of this tactic?

Why are you treating that fact like it’s my problem, and my problem alone? Doesn’t it concern you, as well?

You asked “What exactly are your reasons for believing that eating vegetables is not wrong?” So, we’re skipping over the possibility of eating meat being “wrong” and skipping right over to vegetables.

So, you’re arguing that we should eat all meat, because it would help to feed the world’s starving? I don’t understand what you’re getting at.

As for protien, yes we need it, but you can easily get enough protien by eating a variety of vegetables and legumes. Fish are terribly high in toxins like PCBs and heavy metals. Fish are also highly genetically engineered, at least the ones in the fish farms. And when these bioengineered fish escape they farms (a regular occurance,) they put the enitre population at risk, because they reach maturity in one third the time of normal fish. Therefore, they mate as much as they can, but to no avail since they’re steril. This poses a serious threat to the natural populations of many fish.

Also, fish are being net-caught in mass, mass amounts. We’re daraining the oceans way beyond the point of sustainability. This is a problem. Hence, why we should eliminate, or decrease at the very least, eating fish. Also, huge amounts of fish are cauhgt and used for cattle and pig feed. Significant percentages of the world’s catch, again, get fed to livestock. This is beyond wasteful.

And besides, I’m not really attacking the fish industry. I’m more concerned with the beef and fast food industries. So, it’s not really “right” of you to skip over the rainforests.

You said “I think a lot of us agree that the rainforests should not be cleared. But there are, surprisingly, other places to raise animals.” Well, you agree on that fact, yet you continue to give money to companies that do, in fact, have a direct hand in clearing the rainforests. But no one wants to seem to tackle that fact. Care to give it a shot?

Also, the fact that a lot of land that could be being used is not, in no way excuses the fact that other land (ie rainforests) are being used for cattle grazing. You just skipped over one thing, and jumped into another. Slow down. So you do acknowledge that farmland is being used to produce feed for animals? Well, what are constructive solutions to this problem? What can we do? Why is/isn’t this beneficial to us?

I’m not so concerned about Ghandi’s milk habits. He was a great man, regardless of his dietary habits.

Also, you said "You didn’t respond to any of my points. Also, surprising. " C’mon, I’m outnumbered by quite a bit, which is well and good, but it leaves me unable to answer every question and comment on every point. I’m sorry about that. I’m trying to catch up.

Squish, what was your “Nature…is what we are put into this world to rise above” todoo if it wan’t a definition?

Animals produce a lot of waste. A lot. Which is just another advantage we could befefit from by adopting a plant-based diet.

The Rio Salado/Salt River. What kind of crops was it supporting? There is at least a 50% chance, if not better, that that land was being used to produce corn and/or soy destined for livestock consumption.

I use an electric blanket because it get’s damn cold, with no central heating, and no insulated walls.

Okay, so I’m defending lifestyle choices. So, I have to defend my own lifestyle choice to all of you, before you’ll admit that possibly there’s, you know, maybe some implications of our lifestyle choice that we should think about? So, the problem doesn’t exist at all, because I don’t live up to these synthetic standards your setting for me, but choose not to follow yourself? Did I get this right?

-TGD

I quite agree that the average person may not eat as much as a 1,250lb cow. However, assuming that that field went from feeding cattle (which tgd deems “wasteful”) to solely feeding humans (however many it can subsequently feed), the environmental impact of that field remains exactly the same. It is not the fact that its products are going to cattle that makes it problematic; it is it’s mere existence!

That should be “it is its mere existence”, of course.

It is called subsidies. For example, the government finances irrigation systems in the California Imperial Valley, and then pays farmers not to grow crops on it. The reasoning is, that if there are lots of crops, the price will go down, and small farms will all be destroyed because they won’t be able to make a profit. I am not sure what would happen if these subsidies went away. It seems likely that all small farms would be destroyed and only large corporations using efficient machinery could grow crops. That is what YOU are arguing for. Even so, it is probable that the corporations would still limit the crops they produce in order to keep the prices high.

It is everyone’s problem, but it is specifically a huge flaw in your argument. You say that if we stopped eating meat, land would be free to grow crops. But we are already not using the land we have because we want the prices to stay high. Therefore your argument fails.

You also say that eating meat causes people around the world to starve. But that is not true, the reason they are starving is because they don’t have the money to buy food. There is plenty of land to grow food. But nobody is going to grow it unless they get paid! Meat is not the problem. You are really arguing against our entire economic system.

You have said that eating meat is wrong because the meat industry causes the land not to be used to grow food that could feed the starving people of the world.

I have just informed you that the farming industry also causes the land not to be used to grow food that could feed the starving people of the world.

Therefore, if eating meat is wrong, eating vegetables is also wrong. Except that eating meat does not actually cause the land not to be used, because the land would not be used anyway. Therefore by your argument eating meat is fine, but eating vegetables is wrong.

What you need to realize is that each industry is based on money. The meat industry will produce the amount of meat that is profitable, and so will the farming industry. Getting rid of the meat industry will not suddenly make the farming industry grow enough food to feed the world, because unless the world can pay for it it is not profitable.

Finch said “I quite agree that the average person may not eat as much as a 1,250lb cow. However, assuming that that field went from feeding cattle (which tgd deems “wasteful”) to solely feeding humans (however many it can subsequently feed), the environmental impact of that field remains exactly the same. It is not the fact that its products are going to cattle that makes it problematic; it is it’s mere existence”

Sure, the impact on the field is precisely the same. That’s not the point. The point is that we are reducing the amount of corn we feed the cown down to 1,250 pounds of cow. Only about 600-700 poinds of that cow are edible, remember.

By “reducing” food down, by first funneling it through cows, we create an entirely unnecessary, wasteful industry. Sure, we get more protein. Is it necessary? Nope. With the protien you also get more fat, toxins, and all the other good stuff.

See, but if we eliminate the cows from this equation, we lose all of the undesirable side-effects that would normally be exclusive to raising cows (as opposed to corn), namely: waste material, antibiotics and growth hormones being passed into the human food chain, clearing of rainforests, etc.

Its not the corn’s existence that we’re worried about, it’s the cow’s.
-TGD

Ahh, but you are forgetting one detail. The corn would not even have been grown in the first place, were it not for the cow. Because it is profitable to grow corn for cows, but it is not profitable to grow corn for starving people around the world.